>From: Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: 2006/08/25 Fri AM 01:11:55 CDT >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org> >Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>Tim, > >Its probably best if you now update your draft with a better description >of what scenario you are looking at, details about the customers >requirements, justification of why new work is needed, and an analysis >of why existing solutions are inappropriate or undesirable in your >scenario. Hi Jari, you're absolutely right. Even now we're in the process of considering how to better describe and provide detail for all the things you mention above. >This has already been a long discussion but in my >opinion it has not been all >that informative yet with >regards to these issues. Also, at least I >personally >want to know what problem >we are solving before spending a lot of >effort in analysing a solution -- Understood. In future revisions for example we hope to better illustrate customer requirements that exist for which our proposed ICMPv6 PD mechanism would be either a better or the only solution. Any technical feedback would however also be very helpful as we revise. >we know there is an infinite number of ways to design a protocol >but the real question is whether it solves a problem. > >Looking forward to your new draft. > >--Jari Tim Rom 8:28 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
